4 ms·
> It's not supposed to be a bible that implementation can't deviate from. It's a plan, not law. It's okay for the plan to be adjusted in contact with reality.
by lelanthran 6mo ago
> It's not supposed to be a bible that implementation can't deviate from. It's a plan, not law. It's okay for the plan to be adjusted in contact with reality.
My point is that without writing, you can't surface the type of problems you usually surface. The AI isn't going to surface those problems for you.
It's rare when reviewing that you think "Oh shit, this approach is totally wrong, we need to throw it away", while it's common when writing code to have that reaction.
If you aren't writing, you aren't having that reaction, and you aren't going to get it from reviewing code that has thousands of green "passed" lines in the testsuite.
- surgical_fire 6mo ago> It's rare when reviewing that you think "Oh shit, this approach is totally wrong, we need to throw it away", while it's common when writing code to have that reaction. That's not my experience. It is actually very common for specifications and design to be reviewed and improved.
- lelanthran 6mo ago> It is actually very common for specifications and design to be reviewed and improved. I think there may be crossed wires here - specs and designs are reviewed, but I've never seen a code review result in a spec+design review, while I always see spec+desiogn review happen during the "writing code" phase. In short, reading code does not result in a spec+design review, writing code does. If you are not writing code and only reading it is unlikely you will trigger a spec+design review.